COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

An anatomic study of coronoid cartilage thickness with special reference to fractures.

BACKGROUND: Current coronoid fracture classification systems are based on fragment size and configuration using plain radiographs and/or computed tomography (CT). During surgery, coronoid fracture fragments appear much larger than anticipated because cartilage is radiolucent and therefore not accounted for with preoperative imaging. The purpose of this imaging study was to quantify the articular cartilage thickness of the coronoid, with reference to coronoid fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four cadaveric ulnae were dissected, imaged with CT, and analyzed by use of image analysis software. Thirteen identifiable landmarks were chosen on the coronoid, olecranon, and proximal radioulnar joint to measure articular cartilage thickness. Intraobserver reliability and interobserver reliability were determined.

RESULTS: Cartilage thickness was highest at the coronoid tip, with a mean of 3.0 mm (range, 1.7-4.6 mm). Cartilage thickness at the tip correlated inversely with age (P < .01) and correlated strongly with overall ulnar height and ulnar length (P < .05). All measurements had excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability.

CONCLUSION: The thickness of cartilage on the coronoid tip is not inconsequential. The results of this study indicate that a 2-mm coronoid tip fracture on CT scan may actually appear to be a mean of 5 mm thick when viewed at the time of surgery. Clinically, this is important because it may alter the classification, the decision to treat, or the type of fixation used. Importantly, biomechanical cadaveric studies assessing coronoid injuries have incorporated cartilage thickness into coronoid size measurements when creating simulated fractures; therefore, it is critical that the conclusions of such biomechanical studies be scrutinized with regard to their clinical recommendations. Surgeons should be aware of these discrepancies.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app